The defender only kicked that ball because of a pass to a player that was offside though. Thus he was influencing the play even before the deflection.
I've reffed ten year olds in Utah so I would know.
He fulfils both the criteria demanded above though (an image I've grabbed directly from the FIFA Laws). By the same logic, if the Liverpool player who got a touch had instead controlled it and then passed it through to Kane himself, you'd still want Kane to be offside but I'm afraid he was on.
This is why ref and linesman were having a debate as to whether the player touched it, as if there was no Liverpool touch (and the linesman couldn't see from where he was) it would have been offside. He flagged up the possible offside after the referee's decision and then the referee confirmed there had been a touch so the penalty could stand - great officiating all round.
You'd think Liverpool supporters would be more used to shit defending by now and not be blaming officials for it all.
https://streamable.com/pjpmp
Dermot says no as Lovrens attempt to play the ball was a deliberate
Kane's still dived though.
See, this is what I suspected, but as Spoonsky said, that makes no sense (even if it is the law). By forcing a player into having to do something, whilst being offside you have to be influencing the game. The situation you then describe happens quite often (as I described earlier) and it is (should be) offside - otherwise is any deflected pass/shot not offside? Shot from the edge of the box, takes a deflection, saved, attacker standing in an offside position when the shot is hit puts it in - is that a goal?
Kudos for the great game John Moss comment earlier by the way. He quite often has a 'great game' whenever I see him.
Ah, bringing intention into things, a sure fire way to provide resolution.
Well, you had ample opportunity to clear the ball . . .
The law doesn't say 'influencing the game' though, it says 'involved in active play'.
Your next bit comes under 'Gaining an Advantage', see pages 22-24 here: https://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afd...e_en_47383.pdf. There is a logic to it.
I hadn't seen the penalty that was causing so much consternation before the link above. Why's anyone arguing about it? Kane kicks it out of play and takes a massive dive.
Not really.
If a defender tried to block a shot (an intentional act) and it deflects off him, goes on target, is saved and then is put in by someone standing in an offside position when the shot is taken, Dermot's intentional play of the ball rule (which sounds like fucking rugby league) would suggest to me that the goal should stand. Which is clearly a nonsense. All you do then is get into debates about whether someone deliberately tried to kick/touch the ball (and in 90% of instances you'd have to conclude they probably did in some capacity). It's obviously just an exceptional (and marginally interesting) situation, but I'm not sure I really subscribe to the defender touching the ball and thus rendering the whole rule void theory, even if that's where we are with the offside law.
There is a slight grey area in that the rules are written with competent play in mind, rather than the ball slicing off retards like Lovren and the end result being pretty much what was originally intended.
The key thing though is less what Lovren was doing and more what Kane was doing, which is making a run some way away from the action but obviously not in a position deemed to be 'gaining an advantage' as per the definitions they've given there.
My interpretation is that a pass is treated differently to an attempt at a block or a deflection.
Actually, thanks Jim, frame 25, it's offside.
Do we need a definition section on 'rebound'? As if there's going to be some exception for intentional acts, that's going to fuck the bit up about 'keepers saving shots and having the rebounds put in.
What is a save then if not a play of the ball? What is a rebound? That frame suggests it doesn't even have to bounce back off something.
I don't see how you square the circle where 1 is a new phase of play, and the other isn't.
Pick your way through that, Clifford Chance. Bolded bit I think applies.Defi nitions
In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following defi nitions apply:
• “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head,
body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the
second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this defi nition
• “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or
touched by a team-mate
• “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from
playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s
line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball
• “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball
i. that rebounds or is defl ected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an
opponent having been in an offside position
ii. that rebounds, is defl ected or is played to him from a deliberate save
by an opponent having been in an offside position
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who
deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered
to have gained an advantage.
I see they catch is at the end, but it doesn't work with that frame 25 if the 'deflection' stems from a deliberate attempt to play the ball, so do they have a section where blocks are defined? It all seems a bit rabbit holey and, as you say, trust Lovren's incompetence to be so game breaking. If only he was little more useless and just missed the ball.
Manager sacked lol. It was never going to work out. Cyprus? Fuck me.
Nobody’s contending the fact that Lovren touching it started a “new phase of play,” but he wouldn’t have touched it if Kane wasn’t there. And Kane was offside. Should have been a Liverpool free kick.
I'm a twit
It shouldn't. But anyway, let it go, he missed. Last thing we need is you shower on yet another JUSTICE capitan
Jaap Stam, Steve McLaren and Gordon Strachan.
Inspiring.
Roy Keane. One will do at this stage.
I understand the rules point but I still struggle to accept it was intended to be used/applied as the facts presented themselves - rather it intends to cover errant back passes and the like made after a potentiality offside situation has arisen (so in the case in point, had Lovren deliberately played the ball back into Kane's path, as in that's what he intended to do, not just what he errantly did, he wouldn't have been offside). The more layers of detail/complication you add to anything, the more 'interesting' (and potentially unintended) consequences you get.
Lovren's was an errant back pass. Just really, really errant as opposed to slightly. Like I said, it's the same deal as if he'd taken a touch and then slipped Kane through, Dier stylee.
Does the referee ever rule on who was trying to pass to who? Backpass rule? Maybe. The backpass rule is a contrived load of shite though, so I'm happy for offside to overrule it.
But once you say that, then a deliberate act to block the ball catches it as well, otherwise it's just more layers of detail to go wrong - only blocks not made with the foot?
The problem (and VAR will find this) is that it is almost impossible to properly 'objectify' something which should probably really be regarded as subjective (even though I know it's not how they've worded it, but 'was Kane interefering with play' is an inherently subjective question). Even the bit where they try to redeem saves with the term 'deliberate save' - what if the 'keeper makes an unintentional save (it's hard to imagine but say he is trying to pull his arm away as he thinks it is going out/wide but it hits him)? More detail doesn't lead to greater clarity.
Are deliberate blocks counted under rebounds/deflections or are they playing the ball? Perhaps we'll never know.
My old man is a stickler for 'if you're offside, you're offside' which does clarify things a bit.
It's almost like all this pissing around with the offside and handball has made everything needlessly complicated.
Dele Alli sex tape.
21 year old male in 'getting his dick sucked' scandal!
Who fucking cares, honestly.
Pm bam for the video.
It just gets better.
Who was it on the Twitter who said that even the maddest political abuse/shite tends to come from people with Liverpool references (the city, but the club in particular) in their profiles? I think it was Dan Hodges, but James Delingpole might have highlighted it as well.
It seems legit to be honest. The fergie Mafia were famously Zionist.
The shadowy 'Class of 90-Jew' dictate world events to this very day.
Bennavento are looking at signing Samir Nasri and Alex Song on free transfers, having got Sagna through the door last week.
Recreating the '08 team I wonder what Eduardo's up to these days.
Diaby is available as well - as far as I know.
Maybe they could use him as a glass wall in the VIP section.
Also, I just Googled around and found Denilson is only 29.
That just doesn't seem right.
Isn't Eboué homeless or something? Man needs a break.
Probably because of everyone saying his name wrong all these years.
Apparently he tried to join a Northern Cypriot team but it fell through as he failed his medical and is now a coach of Galatasary's U14 team as Terim felt sorry for him.
I was going for E-boooooo-ue